Wallabies v France 3
-
@nzzp Shane Warne takes 'the tears of Kearns' commentary style to the next level. Bloke is an absolute legend of the game but man he is a terrible commentator.
Fascinated to learn that 'the head visibly moving backwards from the contact point' can constitute an illegal tackle and a red card. I would have thought his happens every other tackle.
If that is the case it seems MK is staring down a lengthy ban which is a major blow for us. I still think even if he smacked him straight in the head there is mitigation. They are both bent very low. But relying on mitigation is a serious roll of the dice given how inconsistent reffing is at the moment.
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nzzp Shane Warne takes 'the tears of Kearns' commentary style to the next level. Bloke is an absolute legend of the game but man he is a terrible commentator.
When he started out there was a novelty factor plus insight that he offered which was appealing. But that soon waned when his comments became predictable and more and more cliche. Can’t stand listening to him.
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nzzp Shane Warne takes 'the tears of Kearns' commentary style to the next level. Bloke is an absolute legend of the game but man he is a terrible commentator.
When he started out there was a novelty factor plus insight that he offered which was appealing. But that soon waned when his comments became predictable and more and more cliche. Can’t stand listening to him.
@act-crusader said in Wallabies v France 3:
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
@nzzp Shane Warne takes 'the tears of Kearns' commentary style to the next level. Bloke is an absolute legend of the game but man he is a terrible commentator.
When he started out there was a novelty factor plus insight that he offered which was appealing. But that soon waned when his comments became predictable and more and more cliche. Can’t stand listening to him.
Mute him bro.
-
I think commentators are a reflection of the knowledge in their general community. It comes as no surprise to find that commentators are wrong, biased and driven by perceived grievance. Even among people I know who love rugby their knowledge of the laws and their application is poor. The general public are ignorant beyond belief.
-
BRISBANE, Australia (AP) — All Blacks prop Ofa Tu’ungafasi has been suspended for three matches after being red carded for a high tackle in New Zealand's 24-22 loss to Australia last Saturday night.
The ban, announced Wednesday, rules him out of the remainder of the Tri-Nations series in Australia and out of rugby until February.
Tu’ungafasi was sent off following a review by the Television Match Official of his hit on Australian winger Tom Wright in the first half.
Australian flanker Lachie Swinton, who was sent off before halftime for a high shoulder charge on All Blacks lock Sam Whitelock, was earlier in the week banned for four matches.
World Rugby has been clamping down on tackles where contact is to the head, even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.
-
@antipodean this aged well.
-
BRISBANE, Australia (AP) — All Blacks prop Ofa Tu’ungafasi has been suspended for three matches after being red carded for a high tackle in New Zealand's 24-22 loss to Australia last Saturday night.
The ban, announced Wednesday, rules him out of the remainder of the Tri-Nations series in Australia and out of rugby until February.
Tu’ungafasi was sent off following a review by the Television Match Official of his hit on Australian winger Tom Wright in the first half.
Australian flanker Lachie Swinton, who was sent off before halftime for a high shoulder charge on All Blacks lock Sam Whitelock, was earlier in the week banned for four matches.
World Rugby has been clamping down on tackles where contact is to the head, even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.
-
@kiwimurph said in Wallabies v France 3:
@bones World Rugby have brought in a new high tackle framework since then haven't they?
Good to see it working then.
-
Ah yeah, you're right that fans and media are one-eyed and biased the whole world over. Didn't mean to imply this was an exclusively Aussie trait. But I reckon that the lack of balance and intelligence in the TV coverage is worse here than other places I've seen. And combined with the fact that people, generally, don't have as in depth knowledge - which is understandable since union is not the major sport here - makes the problem bigger and self-perpetuating.
I'll admit that Welsh fans are as rabid and one-eyed as anyone. But take Sam Warburton's red card in the 2011 RWC semifinal - that could have been a yellow on another day, and I'm very confident we would have won if it was. Most Welsh fans will, through gritted teeth, admit that a red was reasonable if a little unlucky. Because the TV didn't rant and rave about was an appalling injustice it was and how it was the death of rugby. I reckon if that happened to the Wallabies they'd still be talking about taking it to CAS in Lausanne.
@gibbonrib said in Wallabies v France 3:
Ah yeah, you're right that fans and media are one-eyed and biased the whole world over. Didn't mean to imply this was an exclusively Aussie trait. But I reckon that the lack of balance and intelligence in the TV coverage is worse here than other places I've seen. And combined with the fact that people, generally, don't have as in depth knowledge - which is understandable since union is not the major sport here - makes the problem bigger and self-perpetuating.
Have you been to England…?
-
The NZ coverage is diabolical as well as you'd note reading the AB game threads. The comms, who don't even seem to have a basic understanding of the laws, are constantly bitching about them and disagreeing with the ref decisions etc. It's really tiresome to listen to - rugby is a dynamic, fluid game that is an absolute spectacle to watch if you take it for what it is and don't constantly sweat the small stuff. It's nearly impossible to ref - the best refs like Owen's aren't the best because they apply the law to the letter, they are the best because they have a great, undefinable, "feel" for the game and allow it to flow.
I do wish comms and the media would stop bitching about micro decisions and spend more time celebrating the game and the insane skill levels and commitment of the players on display.
@no-quarter said in Wallabies v France 3:
The NZ coverage is diabolical as well as you'd note reading the AB game threads. The comms, who don't even seem to have a basic understanding of the laws, are constantly bitching about them and disagreeing with the ref decisions etc. It's really tiresome to listen to - rugby is a dynamic, fluid game that is an absolute spectacle to watch if you take it for what it is and don't constantly sweat the small stuff. It's nearly impossible to ref - the best refs like Owen's aren't the best because they apply the law to the letter, they are the best because they have a great, undefinable, "feel" for the game and allow it to flow.
I do wish comms and the media would stop bitching about micro decisions and spend more time celebrating the game and the insane skill levels and commitment of the players on display.
I wish the comms would take the approach to refereeing decisions of only criticising bad calls instead of wrong calls - that is, some calls are wrong but because of the nature of the game you can see why the ref got it technically wrong (marginal forward pass, marginal offside, etc) and those should be left to slide. Genuinely bad calls - those that were obviously wrong even without the benefit of video replays - should totally be fair game. I don’t think MK’s red falls into this latter category
-
@nzzp Shane Warne takes 'the tears of Kearns' commentary style to the next level. Bloke is an absolute legend of the game but man he is a terrible commentator.
Fascinated to learn that 'the head visibly moving backwards from the contact point' can constitute an illegal tackle and a red card. I would have thought his happens every other tackle.
If that is the case it seems MK is staring down a lengthy ban which is a major blow for us. I still think even if he smacked him straight in the head there is mitigation. They are both bent very low. But relying on mitigation is a serious roll of the dice given how inconsistent reffing is at the moment.
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Fascinated to learn that 'the head visibly moving backwards from the contact point' can constitute an illegal tackle and a red card. I would have thought his happens every other tackle.
It's one of the key indicators in good tackles or high tackles.
Head moves forward first = primary contact is to the body of the player (head keeps going relative to body)
Head moves backwards first = primary contact is to the head of the player (body keeps going relative to the head).
So, go back to the SRTT final, and check out the 'no malice' late hit on Black; head goes backwards first ... how you get a yellow card out of that astounds me (well, it doesn't because refs and finals and stuff, but it should)
-
Maybe the judiciary had better views that confirmed initial point of contact although given the track record of decisions like this the better lawyer usually gets the rub.
Plenty of us with the same view as the ref called it as contact to the neck so he can't be blamed for the wrong start point.
Interesting though is the question of benefit of doubt which will always be subjective but I guess that if 4 refs see it the same way then that's the way you go.
What the ruling does confirm though is that it was merely a few centimetres that differentiated between red and yellow. It is still an illegal hit just doesn't fit the framework for red by that small margin.
It definitely isn't 'just a good hard hit' as many were making out.
Although he is freed from a ban I hope that they don't take from this that everything else is ka pai. Onus is on the tackler to be careful and this tackler clearly wasn't. You roll that dice you go into the refs hands without a QC by your side. -
Maybe the judiciary had better views that confirmed initial point of contact although given the track record of decisions like this the better lawyer usually gets the rub.
Plenty of us with the same view as the ref called it as contact to the neck so he can't be blamed for the wrong start point.
Interesting though is the question of benefit of doubt which will always be subjective but I guess that if 4 refs see it the same way then that's the way you go.
What the ruling does confirm though is that it was merely a few centimetres that differentiated between red and yellow. It is still an illegal hit just doesn't fit the framework for red by that small margin.
It definitely isn't 'just a good hard hit' as many were making out.
Although he is freed from a ban I hope that they don't take from this that everything else is ka pai. Onus is on the tackler to be careful and this tackler clearly wasn't. You roll that dice you go into the refs hands without a QC by your side. -
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
I guess you're in the hard-man camp then?
-
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
I guess you're in the hard-man camp then?
@crucial said in Wallabies v France 3:
@mariner4life said in Wallabies v France 3:
@crucial that's a lot of words to say "I was wrong and I'm sorry for being so sanctimonious"
I guess you're in the hard-man camp then?
Yeah good one mate. Thumbs up.
-
@derpus said in Wallabies v France 3:
Fascinated to learn that 'the head visibly moving backwards from the contact point' can constitute an illegal tackle and a red card. I would have thought his happens every other tackle.
It's one of the key indicators in good tackles or high tackles.
Head moves forward first = primary contact is to the body of the player (head keeps going relative to body)
Head moves backwards first = primary contact is to the head of the player (body keeps going relative to the head).
So, go back to the SRTT final, and check out the 'no malice' late hit on Black; head goes backwards first ... how you get a yellow card out of that astounds me (well, it doesn't because refs and finals and stuff, but it should)
-
Maybe the judiciary had better views that confirmed initial point of contact although given the track record of decisions like this the better lawyer usually gets the rub.
Plenty of us with the same view as the ref called it as contact to the neck so he can't be blamed for the wrong start point.
Interesting though is the question of benefit of doubt which will always be subjective but I guess that if 4 refs see it the same way then that's the way you go.
What the ruling does confirm though is that it was merely a few centimetres that differentiated between red and yellow. It is still an illegal hit just doesn't fit the framework for red by that small margin.
It definitely isn't 'just a good hard hit' as many were making out.
Although he is freed from a ban I hope that they don't take from this that everything else is ka pai. Onus is on the tackler to be careful and this tackler clearly wasn't. You roll that dice you go into the refs hands without a QC by your side. -
I'd like to see some clarification from World Rugby about what happened on the field, and in the judiciary.
I don't fully understand the statement. Under the process that Crucial posted earlier in the thread, there was at least a case to be made that it was a red card.
Did this just come down to the first point of contact being the shoulder and not the head/neck?
I don't want BOK to be hauled over the coals, I just want some clarity.
